The Bible is Rediculous!

[_Roger]

Well this is sort of an interesting turn of events....

So if I am understanding correctly, marg writes that by Maccoby's logic, Pauline editors would have edited the gospels to read as they do, which has since become the orthodox interpretation of the Jesus "myth."

And Scratch seems to concur:

How do you mean? Wasn't "the Jesus story," as we know it today, written/assembled after Paul's death?

Regardless, that has no bearing whatsoever on The Nehor's assertion that elements in the text of the New Testament that require us to read it as "literal."

Well it would seem--to me anyway--that you both (inadvertently?) support Nehor's assertion of intent... ? By asserting that Paul--ironically in Joseph Smith style (and I am not LDS!)--comes on the scene shorty after Christ with rival interpretations and claims more authority for his own viewpoint through direct visionary contact with Jesus Christ--and then, according to your logic--alters or even fabricates the gospels to elevate his own opinions and denigrate those of his opposition.... then why wouldn't he want them to be taken literally?

[_marg]

Roger, what's the time line of when Paul's epistles and the Gospels were estimated to have been written?

While I could search for this, perhaps you know it off hand. It's been a while since I read information concerning this stuff.

I did a quick look and I believe it is estimated Paul's letter were approx. 55 - 58 A.D and the Gospels later 65- 100 A.D.

So Paul didn't have to alter any gospels and the gospel writers were apparently writing to a Greek speaking audience. My understanding was that the intended audience were pagan Romans.

And yes there is similarity between what Mormonism did with Christianity ...as to what Christianity did to Judaism. New sacred texts were added onto an established religion and changed to appeal to a different audience.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well it would seem--to me anyway--that you both (inadvertently?) support Nehor's assertion of intent...

No, I certainly don't. The Nehor's argument was that there was something in the text itself that demanded a "literal" reading. You are arguing something else---i.e., that there are extra-literary factors that should influence our decision about whether or not to read the New Testament "literally."

[_Roger]

Scratch:

No, I certainly don't. The Nehor's argument was that there was something in the text itself that demanded a "literal" reading. You are arguing something else---i.e., that there are extra-literary factors that should influence our decision about whether or not to read the New Testament "literally."

Well drawing that conclusion from the text alone, I think is reasonable, but as the debate seems to illustrate, subjective. However I was speaking specifically to your observation having to do with the "intent" of the author(s) and how could Nehor know that intent one way or the other?

If the assertion is going to be that Paul had control over the gospels to such an extent that he comes out looking like the hero, then I would suggest he intended for them to be taken literally.

Yes, you are correct to point out that that is an extra-literary consideration, but, I thought relevant to the discussion nonetheless.

But that, of course, is neither my assertion nor Nehor's assertion, it is merely a logical conclusion based on one skeptical interpretation of Paul's influence on the gospels which, Maccoby, the writer marg cited, suggests is what happened.

As to the debate over whether to take the gospels literally or not, what is the most compelling reason, extra-textual or not, that you see for rejecting them as literal?

[_Roger]

marg:

Roger, what's the time line of when Paul's epistles and the Gospels were estimated to have been written?

While I could search for this, perhaps you know it off hand. It's been a while since I read information concerning this stuff.

I did a quick look and I believe it is estimated Paul's letter were approx. 55 - 58 A.D and the Gospels later 65- 100 A.D.

Well according to the guy you cited:

the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110.

Although I am not sure that any date is set in stone.

So Paul didn't have to alter any gospels and the gospel writers were apparently writing to a Greek speaking audience.

Well this is my position, yes, but not that of Maccoby, the guy you cited.

My understanding was that the intended audience were pagan Romans.

I don't think that is true. I think the intended audience were both Jews and Greeks (pagans).

And yes there is similarity between what Mormonism did with Christianity ...as to what Christianity did to Judaism. New sacred texts were added onto an established religion and changed to appeal to a different audience.

Here I agree with you. And just like with Joseph Smith, everything boils down to whether or not Paul actually had a revelation of Jesus. If he did not, then I think we ought not regard Paul's teaching as scripture. It seems, however, from circumstantial evidence, that Paul indeed had some sort of life-changing epiphany that would mesh nicely with what he claims actually happened.

[_marg]

marg previously: So Paul didn't have to alter any gospels and the gospel writers were apparently writing to a Greek speaking audience.


Roger: Well this is my position, yes, but not that of Maccoby, the guy you cited.

I don't follow you. I don' think Hyam Maccoby suggested the Gospels were changed. I could pull out the book to find what he has to say about the Gospels, but I think the Gospels were intended for a Roman Pagan audience, not a Jewish audience I believe that is Hyam's position and were written with that in mind.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch:

No, I certainly don't. The Nehor's argument was that there was something in the text itself that demanded a "literal" reading. You are arguing something else---i.e., that there are extra-literary factors that should influence our decision about whether or not to read the New Testament "literally."

Well drawing that conclusion from the text alone, I think is reasonable, but as the debate seems to illustrate, subjective.

I don't think that I'd even argue that it's principally "subjective." I think, frankly, that it has more to do with socialization, and with which communities the given reader most closely identifies with.

However I was speaking specifically to your observation having to do with the "intent" of the author(s) and how could Nehor know that intent one way or the other?

Obviously, he couldn't. That was my point.

If the assertion is going to be that Paul had control over the gospels to such an extent that he comes out looking like the hero, then I would suggest he intended for them to be taken literally.

Why? I don't think I follow your logic here. I'm not sure how or why editorial control should equal "take this text as literal truth." I'm sure the folks at Norton don't expect us to take, say, Hardy's Jude the Obscure as "literal truth," nor Paradise Lost.

All of this boils down to very basic literary and interpretive theory: meaning in a text is never determined *simply* by either the author or the reader. Meaning in texts is always a confluence of various different forced. So: while your Pauline argument is interesting, and it's certainly more sophisticated and scholarly than The Nehor's argument, it is still, in the end, a bit too anti-intellectual in terms of what it suggests about interpretive possibilities and/or truths.

Yes, you are correct to point out that that is an extra-literary consideration, but, I thought relevant to the discussion nonetheless.

Oh, of course. And on a bit of a sidenote: your comments are starting to resemble the "political" arguments about literary canonicity. E.g., the notion that "the powers that be" shape what we can or cannot treat as "literal," "aesthetically effective," "true," and so on.

But that, of course, is neither my assertion nor Nehor's assertion,

The Nehor did assert that the New Testament should be treated as "literal" on the basis of authorial intent. I've cited his comments above, verbatim. He can now tell us that he misspoke, but the language of his posts is pretty hard to misinterpret, frankly.

it is merely a logical conclusion based on one skeptical interpretation of Paul's influence on the gospels which, Maccoby, the writer marg cited, suggests is what happened.

I don't think I follow you here, Roger. You're saying that we should treat the Gospels as "literal" because of the way Paul edited them? By that logic, we should treat accounts of alien abductions as "literal" provided that the given editor has enough credibility and ambition.

As to the debate over whether to take the gospels literally or not, what is the most compelling reason, extra-textual or not, that you see for rejecting them as literal?

Well, obviously, the "most compelling reason" is the fact that most of us don't observe things like the miracles of Jesus on a regular basis, if at all. I daresay that most of us haven't heard of these sorts of things outside of the Gospels, or other religious texts (or works of imaginative literature).

Here is the larger question, in my opinion: What is lost, spiritually speaking, in letting go of the notion that the Bible---or the Book of Mormon, or any other religious text---is "literal" in the sense that the newspaper is "literal"? Would your ability to conceive of a life after death really be totally compromised if it were somehow determined that the Bible absolutely, 100% was not "literal"? I ask because it seems such a dumb and arbitrary interpretive point upon which to hang one's faith. I think that if the Resurrection has any spiritual resonance and plangency, it carries such significance beyond material and practical analysis (which is what we're trying to do when we argue for the "literal-ness" of the New Testament), and that it is therefore very foolish (from a materialist rhetorical perspective) to insist that the contents of the New Testament are "literal". If you are going to live again in the next life, why do the Gospels need to be "literal"?

[_huckelberry]

i wonder if there is sufficient ambiguity in the meaning of literal to allow people to argue without touching each other for a long time.

I hear people speaking as if literal must mean actually factually correct. Checking a dictionary I see a meaning simply contrasted to figurative,literal as apposed to metaphorical. Then another meaning brings in the idea of being true to fact, actual. With the first meaning a piece of fiction could use literal meanings to communicate as apposed to metaphores yet perhaps reamain untrue. A person using the second meaning could insist the fiction fails to be literal. Two fellows could beat the different means about indefinately.

The way I first heard Nehor comment about the New Testament was that the communication there was using a literal mode of meanings not metaphores. That could be a valid observation even if the whole story is fiction.Of course Nehor does not think it is fiction but I doubt he means it cannot be fiction because it uses a literal mode of communication. It does mean that what the New Testament intends to mean when it says Jesus was crucified was that the pricipal character in the story was nailed to real wood and died. That is the primary strong meaning not some metophore to be projected on the story.

I suppose Nehor could say he intended the larger assertion, the way the story is told shows it is true. I suspect he may see some clues to it being real history but it may require something more than seeing those to actuall come to think the gospel story real and true as apposed to merely literal.

[_The Nehor]

The Nehor did assert that the New Testament should be treated as "literal" on the basis of authorial intent. I've cited his comments above, verbatim. He can now tell us that he misspoke, but the language of his posts is pretty hard to misinterpret, frankly.

Yet you did anyways. I am not arguing that you should accept that the Bible as correct based on this issue. I am stating that the WRITERS were either intending to report the facts or were trying to deceive. They were not writing so people could develop symbolic meaning from the miracles and life of Jesus. If you want a comparison I urge you to read Jewish mystic literature. There's some good stuff out there. I enjoy it. It doesn't read like the New Testament though. In fact Christians bent on symbolism then wrote their own texts. They read like myth. Some of the gnostic stuff particularly.

If you want to argue that this is a subjective distinction then go ahead. As I said I studied a lot of this in school and got to know a few of the experts in the field. They would all laugh at these fascinating dodges.

I thought a little about this while I was swimming today and thought of a bit more evidence. When Jesus returns he spends a lot of time specifically driving home the reality of his return. They think he's a ghost. They think it's some kind of deception. He interacts with them, he eats with them, he makes them touch the wounds so they're sure. It's as if the writers (who had to select passages from his life) picked those designed to drive home that this is real.

Again, I am NOT arguing that this proves that the New Testament is correct. I am saying that like Jesus the text is either meant to be taken as fact or it's a hoax. The text doesn't give us wiggle room. I admit it would be an interesting hoax. Centuries before the realistic fictional novel was invented this anachronism shows up...claiming to be written by four different authors.

Also, I encourage those who want to call the Gospels myth or legend read some myth and legend first. I think the assertion that the New Testament is myth is about as likely as asserting that the front page story of the Wall Street Journal is modern myth. I admit it might be journalistic lies but no one in their right mind is going to argue that the writer wrote about the woes of the current economic situation in an attempt to convey some deeper, non-literal meaning.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The Nehor did assert that the New Testament should be treated as "literal" on the basis of authorial intent. I've cited his comments above, verbatim. He can now tell us that he misspoke, but the language of his posts is pretty hard to misinterpret, frankly.

Yet you did anyways. I am not arguing that you should accept that the Bible as correct based on this issue.

Where did I ever say that you were? Your position initially was that we should accept the New Testament as "literal" on the basis of authorial intent. Then, you realized that was a poor idea and went with the genre argument. But, now I see you're back trying to salvage the "intent" assertion:

I am stating that the WRITERS were either intending to report the facts or were trying to deceive. They were not writing so people could develop symbolic meaning from the miracles and life of Jesus.

As I've said, The Nehor, you cannot know this for certain. You are guessing.

If you want a comparison I urge you to read Jewish mystic literature. There's some good stuff out there. I enjoy it. It doesn't read like the New Testament though. In fact Christians bent on symbolism then wrote their own texts. They read like myth. Some of the gnostic stuff particularly.

No one here (as far as I can tell) is arguing that the Gospels are "myth." My point all along has been that there is nothing within the text itself that demands that we read these fantastic and miraculous events as "literal." Your genre argument is every bit as lame as your authorial intent argument. So what if the Gospels don't "read like myth"? The Grapes of Wrath, Hamlet, and Persuasion don't "read like myth" either, but you're not going to treat them as literal, are you?

If you want to argue that this is a subjective distinction then go ahead.

I'm not going to argue that, since the distinction is irrelevant and it does nothing to advance your claim that the New Testament must be treated as "literal."

As I said I studied a lot of this in school and got to know a few of the experts in the field. They would all laugh at these fascinating dodges.

More appeals to authority---authorities who are not even here to affirm your specious claims. Color me unimpressed. If you have a legitimate argument, make it. Don't sit there telling me that some mysterious, absent "experts" would support your incredibly shaky claims.

I thought a little about this while I was swimming today and thought of a bit more evidence. When Jesus returns he spends a lot of time specifically driving home the reality of his return. They think he's a ghost. They think it's some kind of deception. He interacts with them, he eats with them, he makes them touch the wounds so they're sure. It's as if the writers (who had to select passages from his life) picked those designed to drive home that this is real.

Quite a leap, The Nehor. This is really just another guess on your part (hence the qualifier, "It's as if....") Yes: "as if," but not, "definitely take this literally."

Again, I am NOT arguing that this proves that the New Testament is correct. I am saying that like Jesus the text is either meant to be taken as fact or it's a hoax. The text doesn't give us wiggle room.

Hey, since we're piling on the logical fallacies, we might as well toss in the fallacy of the false dilemma while we're at it. It has already been posited on this thread that the Gospels can be read as illustrations of spiritual dilemmas and questions, rather than strictly literal historical events. (It could be read as pure, entertaining fiction as well.) There is nothing in the text that demands we read it in the strictly dualistic way you are insisting upon here.

Also, I encourage those who want to call the Gospels myth or legend read some myth and legend first.

First of all, who called the Gospels "myth or legend"? Second, I'm sure most of us have read "some myth and legend," so you can drop this dumb didactic red herring. It's a Mopologetic cliché by this point: "Hey, go off a read this and this and this, and then, I *still* won't provide any evidence!"

I think the assertion that the New Testament is myth is about as likely as asserting that the front page story of the Wall Street Journal is modern myth.

Lol. Right, since the Wall Street Journal routinely reports on people being raised from the dead and so forth.

I admit it might be journalistic lies but no one in their right mind is going to argue that the writer wrote about the woes of the current economic situation in an attempt to convey some deeper, non-literal meaning.

Are you seriously comparing the miracles of Jesus with "the current economic situation"? Wow.